|
Cheap Vodka posted:Mass Effect trilogy box set just got announced, coming to 360/PS3/PC. PS3 owners will finally know the joy of driving the Mako. Edit: Man, the ME1 site, still frozen in time.  
FronzelNeekburm fucked around with this message at 19:04 on Sep 26, 2012 |
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 18:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 18:55 |
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Okay then ME2's plot was irrelevant to the series, if you want a different criticism. I guess dealing with family conflicts for only half the game is reasonable. Mass Effect 2's popularity comes partly from the fact that it takes the time to humanize and generate empathy for Shepard's squadmates. This makes the stakes in the Suicide Mission meaningful - the player actually cares about (some/most/all) of their team and their death would have actual impact on the player. Spending over half of its narrative currency on humanizing the squadmembers by dealing with their personal problems is actually one of Mass Effect 2's smartest moves. When Mass Effect 3 fails, it frequently does so by having established characters act in ways that seem very stupid given what we already know about them or introducing new characters, giving them no 'face time' or development in the story, and acting like they are incredibly important/meaningful to the player. People behave irrationally all the time. It's perfectly believable and realistic...if you understand what drives the character and why they behave the way they do. It's up to the author(s) to communicate this motivation. ME3 has problems in this area. It also doesn't help that the science part of Mass Effect 3 has degenerated from being "ok if you don't think about it too hard" to "total and complete nonsense".
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 18:57
|
|
|
Cheap Vodka posted:Mass Effect trilogy box set just got announced, coming to 360/PS3/PC. PS3 owners will finally know the joy of driving the Mako. edit: I've driven the Mako on PC and Xbox 
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 19:58
|
|
|
SubponticatePoster posted:Mothergently caress. I only need 1 for PS3 and I shouldn't have to rebuy 2 & 3 to take a character all the way through. A ps3 port of mass effect 1? I pity whoever ends up working on that ... unless they're jerks ... but even then that's still a cruel fate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 20:21
|
|
|
SubponticatePoster posted:Mothergently caress. I only need 1 for PS3 and I shouldn't have to rebuy 2 & 3 to take a character all the way through. From the press release: quote:Mass Effect, the game which started it all, will be available on PlayStation 3 for the first time through the Mass Effect Trilogy and digitally as a standalone title via the PlayStation Network.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 20:25
|
|
|
thefncrow posted:From the press release:
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 20:27
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:EDI's was like fanfiction it was so bad. "They got the body and then EDI fixed it and made it into a sexy robot body and there was a fire and she walked out of the fire all cool, and like, everyone was totally fine with it and she told some sweet jokes so they decided she could be on the crew now." Seriously everyone is just soooo super down with this. Didn't ME1 lead off with immortal psychic alien babes that can be anybody's waifu? EDI's robo-negligée is pretty weird, but it's not exactly a sudden downshift in the tone of the setting. Hwurmp fucked around with this message at 21:23 on Sep 26, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 20:52
|
|
|
Really Pants posted:Didn't ME1 lead off with immortal psychic alien babes that can be anybody's waifu? EDI's robo-negligée is pretty weird, but it's not exactly a sudden downshift in the tone of the setting.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 22:28
|
|
|
Really Pants posted:Didn't ME1 lead off with immortal psychic alien babes that can be anybody's waifu? EDI's robo-negligée is pretty weird, but it's not exactly a sudden downshift in the tone of the setting. This is not specifically directed at the portrayal of EDI or the Asari and more of a general observation about the setting, but I like to chime in and say that I think there's still a slight difference in terms of stupidity between all three games, or rather, a constant decline in "smartness" from ME1 towards ME3. EDIT: I suppose this is more of a reply to Arglebargle III's post and to expand on his point. I think the basic premise of the Mass Effect is pretty neat for the most part, and of course it falls apart if you bother to examine it with even an ounce of scrutiny, but as long as you can kind of accept it superficially, it does a decent job of enabling all the technology to work on a reasonably "realistic" and believable level. Heck, it even manages to put what is literally space magic, namely the entire Biotics stuff, to an acceptable level for me. Biotic powers are generated by organic beings utilizing the Mass Effect using their nervous systems, which are electric in nature, so it all ties together and I can live with that just fine. ME1 had Asari with their incredibly stupid reproduction mechanics which were probably my main gripe about the universe at that point, but I could still somewhat bear that. ME2 introduced the Reapers' weird reproduction, human goo, and synthetics being created from that, and some weird meta-link between all members of a species through their DNA once they'd been turned into the magic Space Goo (and literally injected via huge syringes into some metal framework), which was incredibly stupid at the time and still feels like the worst part about ME2's story to this day to me. But then ME3 completely knocks the stupidity out of the park with the introduction of the Crucible, the Catalyst and finally the Synthesis ending in my opinion. Again, Space Babes aside, pretty much everything else in the Mass Effect universe up to that point was fairly "realistic" as long as you were willing to accept the premises of the Mass Effect, but Synthesis, and to a lesser degree (but similarly stupid) Control, and even the mechanics of the Crucible and the Catalyst pretty literally change very fabric of reality for the entire universe, that's a whole new level. I think it's only fair to say that ME1 was indeed much "smarter" than the sequels (but particularly ME3) in that regard. I personally suspect that Drew Karpyshyn (gradually) leaving the team over the series was a significant factor for that development, but it's hard to back this up just from a player / outsider perspective. Burning Mustache fucked around with this message at 23:40 on Sep 26, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 23:37
|
|
|
Really Pants posted:Didn't ME1 lead off with immortal psychic alien babes that can be anybody's waifu? EDI's robo-negligée is pretty weird, but it's not exactly a sudden downshift in the tone of the setting. Hypersexual hot blue alien girls was definitely a intentional move for a game that was blatantly a return to 1970s and 80s space opera. Merging them with a very different alien race cliche was the sort of interesting and genre-savvy move that made ME obviously smart. They knew exactly what they were doing. It was EDI's introduction that was bad, not the idea of her acquiring a body. There was no buildup, no player involvement, no plausible mechanism by which the whole thing might have happened (did EDI have an automated workshop in her server core?) and worst: no plausible reactions. The crew's (and Shepard's) response to the whole thing was to just shrug and sort of half-heartedly quip about robots. They barely had the energy to complain that EDI endangered the whole ship without telling anyone. And after like five minutes started telling adolescent jokes. To illustrate the dumbness, I laughed out loud when I chose "new body" in EDI's dialog because I wanted to know WTF just happened and Shepard said "So how's the new body working out?" as if how EDI feels about all this is the first thing anyone would ask about. Honestly I felt pretty blindsided by the whole thing, not curious about EDI's emotions. I don't know if there was cut content or what but it seems like EDI rebuilding the mech body would have been better as a side quest than a cutscene on a timer. Love how the defenses of ME2 boil down to "No, it's just not, you're wrong." assertions. Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 02:08 on Sep 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2012 01:33
|
|
Cheap Vodka posted:Mass Effect trilogy box set just got announced, coming to 360/PS3/PC. PS3 owners will finally know the joy of driving the Mako. Is anyone actually going to buy this?  And N7 day... really? 
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2012 07:58
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Love how the defenses of ME2 boil down to "No, it's just not, you're wrong." assertions. Well, when your argument is literally just 'it's irrelevant, I said so' what do you expect, exactly?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2012 09:02
|
|
|
Milky Moor posted:Is anyone actually going to buy this? Not anyone in this thread, but for anyone who's heard about Mass Effect but never got into it, or only has a PS3 and didn't want to buy 2 and 3 without 1, or likes the look and 'complete' feel of a trilogy box set, or just thinks it's a good deal? I think it should be pretty popular. Dan Didio posted:Well, when your argument is literally just 'it's irrelevant, I said so' what do you expect, exactly? Honestly, I agree - I think people who complain about ME2's plot with the Collectors are missing the point. ME1 and ME3 are the 'plot-centred' games, ME2 is focused on world-building and character development.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2012 09:20
|
|
|
I note that the Collectors are not the only major plot element introduced with ME2. There's the whole TIM subplot, EDI becoming unshackled, Maelon's genophage cure, Legion and his true Geth, how reaper babby is made.... etc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2012 09:40
|
|
|
Thought I might crosspost this here, I found out where they got the name from.Two Finger posted:So I was in class and read something in my notes that made me laugh my rear end off.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2012 09:51
|
|
|
Two Finger posted:Thought I might crosspost this here, I found out where they got the name from. That's not it. The opening crawl of the first game (and I think every game's codex) explains that "Mass effect" is the science fiction manipulation of dark energy to alter the mass of particles. e: Mass Effect 3 codex posted:Element zero can increase or decrease the mass of a volume of space-time when subjected to an electrical current. With a positive current, mass is increased. With a negative current, mass is decreased. The stronger the current, the greater the magnitude of the dark energy mass effect. TacticalUrbanHomo fucked around with this message at 11:39 on Sep 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2012 11:36
|
|
|
Milky Moor posted:And N7 day... really? Well drat! I forgot to write my N7 Day cards! The text? 'I should go'
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2012 11:47
|
|
|
thehumandignity posted:That's not it. The opening crawl of the first game (and I think every game's codex) explains that "Mass effect" is the science fiction manipulation of dark energy to alter the mass of particles. The science fiction manipulation of dark energy to alter the mass of particles isn't a real thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2012 11:54
|
|
|
Milky Moor posted:Is anyone actually going to buy this?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2012 12:38
|
|
|
Fangz posted:I note that the Collectors are not the only major plot element introduced with ME2. There's the whole TIM subplot, EDI becoming unshackled, Maelon's genophage cure, Legion and his true Geth, how reaper babby is made.... etc. Yeah, I was talking more about the main plot with the Collectors that begins and ends with ME2. The stuff you mention I tend to file more under 'buildup to ME3' as it isn't resolved until then, plus a lot of it doubles as character development.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2012 12:54
|
|
|
Dan Didio posted:The science fiction manipulation of dark energy to alter the mass of particles isn't a real thing. How does that prevent it from being the source of the title? I can't find anything to suggest that the name comes from the process of hardening steel. Mass effect is also a medical term, but that doesn't mean the game was named after it. What I found after a quick search is that the game was going to be called Science Fiction X or SFX, but there's a magazine by that name, so they dropped it and went with Mass Effect, after the FTL technology they made up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2012 13:54
|
|
|
Dan Didio posted:Well, when your argument is literally just 'it's irrelevant, I said so' what do you expect, exactly? Okay, let's take the end of ME1 and try to line it up with beginning of ME3. You're a disbarred Spectre guilty of going AWOL with an expensive and awesome stealth ship and a rogue's gallery of accomplices, and you got away with it because you saved the galaxy. The Reapers are coming, but no one will believe you. You have to find some way to fight them. I guess I'll stop there because I just described the end of ME1 and the beginning of ME3. ME2 didn't change the main character or the main conflict one iota. BreakAtmo posted:Honestly, I agree - I think people who complain about ME2's plot with the Collectors are missing the point. ME1 and ME3 are the 'plot-centred' games, ME2 is focused on world-building and character development. So... you agree it didn't advance the main plot? That's generally considered a bad thing for trilogies with a three act plot structure. It works for more episodic stuff like Indiana Jones but I don't think it worked very well for ME2. Still, this position is essentially conceding the point that it was not relevant to the overall plot. Fangz posted:I note that the Collectors are not the only major plot element introduced with ME2. There's the whole TIM subplot, EDI becoming unshackled, Maelon's genophage cure, Legion and his true Geth, how reaper babby is made.... etc. Frankly these aren't major plot elements.* The only thing they do You can disagree about what makes a major plot element, but Shepard and the major forces of the galaxy and the Reapers are still arranged in the same configuration before and after ME2. Heck, the main quest of ME2 which was supposed to be this big deal has not been mentioned 10 hours into ME3. That's not to say they aren't cool things or important in their own way, but they're not major plot movements. Also I want to say this goes for all of ME2: there were a lot of really cool story ideas in the game. Pretty much everything on your list is a high point from ME2 that I enjoyed despite the game's flaws. Criticizing the plot structure doesn't mean I thought Legion wasn't the most original idea for an AI character in decades. The plot though was just off in another direction entirely. You can be like BreakAtmo and not worry about that too much, but breaking with the three act plot structure causes problems when you are telling a story in three acts. Especially a story with a plot that is at its core very conventional. I think I am seeing those problems right off the bat in ME3 but I want to hold out discussing them until I've played more. *I would say the Collectors are not a major plot element because they don't do a drat thing except kill Shepard in the opening five minutes, and we all knew that was going to be reversed by the end of the credit sequence. Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 14:15 on Sep 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2012 14:10
|
|
|
Dan Didio posted:The science fiction manipulation of dark energy to alter the mass of particles isn't a real thing. I... Did... Are we both clear on the meaning of "fiction"?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2012 14:32
|
|
|
Dan Didio posted:The science fiction manipulation of dark energy to alter the mass of particles isn't a real thing. They made up a term for the video game, which is also the name of the game, why is that so hard to comprehend? "Dark souls" aren't real things either, why don't you complain about that? I mean, they can't possibly name a game after something fake.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2012 14:36
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:So... you agree it didn't advance the main plot? That's generally considered a bad thing for trilogies with a three act plot structure. It works for more episodic stuff like Indiana Jones but I don't think it worked very well for ME2. Still, this position is essentially conceding the point that it was not relevant to the overall plot. It didn't change the villains (except for revealing more about their motives), but it changed the main plot by introducing a shitload of new allies and locations throughout the galaxy. Are you seriously trying to argue that ME3 wouldn't be any different without ME2? Look at ME3, remove everything ME2-related and see how much you need to re-write it. Sure, you might be able to replace a load of characters like they do if said characters died on the Suicide Mission, but it wouldn't be even remotely as emotionally fulfilling if characters like Mordin and Henry Lawson were just introduced in ME3 out of the blue.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2012 14:45
|
|
|
BreakAtmo posted:It didn't change the villains (except for revealing more about their motives), but it changed the main plot by introducing a shitload of new allies and locations throughout the galaxy. Are you seriously trying to argue that ME3 wouldn't be any different without ME2? Look at ME3, remove everything ME2-related and see how much you need to re-write it. Sure, you might be able to replace a load of characters like they do if said characters died on the Suicide Mission, but it wouldn't be even remotely as emotionally fulfilling if characters like Mordin and Henry Lawson were just introduced in ME3 out of the blue. Agreed. ME2 was extremely important for the flavor of the series - think about how important/interesting the Geth conflict was before and after ME2.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2012 15:08
|
|
|
BreakAtmo posted:It didn't change the villains (except for revealing more about their motives), but it changed the main plot by introducing a shitload of new allies and locations throughout the galaxy. Are you seriously trying to argue that ME3 wouldn't be any different without ME2? Look at ME3, remove everything ME2-related and see how much you need to re-write it. Sure, you might be able to replace a load of characters like they do if said characters died on the Suicide Mission, but it wouldn't be even remotely as emotionally fulfilling if characters like Mordin and Henry Lawson were just introduced in ME3 out of the blue. The characters crossing over doesn't stop ME2 being a complete side story. No, Padok isn't as emotionally compelling as Mordin, but the fact you can just swap the new guy in is pretty telling. Almost nothing plotwise in ME2 comes to anything in ME3. Do the mass human kidnappings have any impact on ME3s plot? no. Do the collectors have any impact on ME3s plot? no. Does the Reaperbaby getting killed have any impact on ME3s plot? no. Does the loving huge choice you made at the end of ME2 regarding the collector base have any impact on ME3s plot? Nope! I felt like ME2 kind of returned to square 1 at the end of that game, but there were definately some interesting hooks set up for 3, so the problem isn't really specifically with ME2s structure. The fact that a choice as big as the collector base goes literally nowhere is kind of terrible, and it really shows that there was no overarching plan throughout the series. Cmon, tell you didn't watch character after character in 3 betray their own backstory and motivations and think YOU ARE MAKING THIS UP AS YOU GO ALONG. Hell, I still like the series but they really had no loving idea how to pull it together.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2012 15:20
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Okay, let's take the end of ME1 and try to line it up with beginning of ME3. You're a disbarred Spectre guilty of going AWOL No, you're not. Not at the end of ME1. Now, again, try and tell the story of Mass Effect 3, exactly as is, without any element that was introduced in Mass Effect 2. That was your assertion, that it was irrelevant. Prove that, please. The Illusive Man, the Reaper reproduction which informs most of their tactics and the background of the war in ME3, the entire Genophage arc can't be finished. Among many other smaller things. Arglebargle III posted:ME2 didn't change the main character Except for Shepard's entire arc about being pushed into doing unsavoury actions to defeat the Reapers, their entire sense of identity and allegiance being strained and tested and both of those things being key elements to Shepard's character progress in Mass Effect 3, a large part of defining her emotional response to Cerberus' actions in Mass Effect 3 and her frustrations and failings in dealing with them in 3, yeah, sure. Character's don't have to change dramatically or overtly to progress, they can come to new understandings about what's already there or have their existing character traits tested and trialed. This is the most basic type of story that's ever existed. It's the Hero's Journey. The character starts out and ends the story as a noble person, but they reaffirm that by being tested along the way. Arglebargle III posted:or the main conflict one iota Yes, because characters suffer these things called setbacks, in three act story structure you like to reference, these things generally occur during the second act and are left to be resolved into the third act. For example Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, etc. etc. don't actually advance the 'main conflict' in their second act but instead focus on trying and trialing their heroes on smaller, more personal conflicts in order to set pieces in motion for the final act. Now, I'm arguing here on your terms, and more or less devil's advocating the position that Mass Effect 2 doesn't advance the plot in a meaningful way (which I'll not I disagree with and is not precisely what you originally stated). thehumandignity posted:I... Did... Are we both clear on the meaning of "fiction"? Yes, but the guy you responded to was pointing out that 'Mass Effect' is a real thing and they took the term from that and appropriated it for their fake thing, which then became the title of their game featuring the fake thing. He is aware that the game is named because their is a fake thing in it called the same thing that the game is. Crows Turn Off posted:They made up a term for the video game, which is also the name of the game, why is that so hard to comprehend? It's not hard to comprehend, I was pointing out the guy that was being quoted knows why it was named that but was himself pointing out the name originally came from something real before they appropriated it for the fake thing. Why is that so hard to comprehend? Just be cool. Shirkelton fucked around with this message at 15:40 on Sep 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2012 15:29
|
|
|
ShineDog posted:The characters crossing over doesn't stop ME2 being a complete side story. No, Padok isn't as emotionally compelling as Mordin, but the fact you can just swap the new guy in is pretty telling. Oh, I agree that ME3's handling could have been done better. But your entire argument only works if you consider plot to be more important than world-building and character development. I don't, and neither do many other people, especially in a story like Mass Effect that's so focused on a massive, varied setting and intricate character interaction.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2012 15:45
|
|
|
BreakAtmo posted:intricate character interaction. 'Character interaction' is probably more accurate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2012 15:47
|
|
|
Dan Didio posted:Yes, but the guy you responded to was pointing out that 'Mass Effect' is a real thing and they took the term from that and appropriated it for their fake thing As far as I can tell, it's just a coincidence. They made up "the mass effect" for their fictional technology, and it just happened to be a technical term already in use in a couple of fields.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2012 15:50
|
|
|
Toast Museum posted:As far as I can tell, it's just a coincidence. They made up "the mass effect" for their fictional technology, and it just happened to be a technical term already in use in a couple of fields. ...probably, dude. I'm not the one who said that they did take it from the real thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2012 15:56
|
|
|
Dan Didio posted:...probably, dude. I'm not the one who said that they did take it from the real thing. Dan Didio posted:
Dan Didio posted:they took the term from that and appropriated it for their fake thing Don't know how I could have reached that conclusion.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2012 16:07
|
|
|
Toast Museum posted:Don't know how I could have reached that conclusion. Yeah, I don't know how you could either: quote:the guy you responded to was pointing out that 'Mass Effect' is a real thing and they took the term from that and appropriated it for their fake thing I mean, come on, man, I'm sorry I made it into a jab, but this is ridiculous. I didn't say that thing, someone else did, that's what I was pointing out with that jab, that they were suggesting something different. Can we move on, now? Please? Shirkelton fucked around with this message at 16:11 on Sep 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2012 16:09
|
|
|
Edit: forget it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2012 16:11
|
|
|
Dan Didio posted:'Character interaction' is probably more accurate. That's a matter of opinion, and apparently our opinions are different. The point I'm making is that plot is less important in Mass Effect, relatively, than it is in other works, and I think it's fine for ME2 to put the plot on the backburner in favour of character development and world-building that, IMO, serves to make ME3 a far better game. Hardly perfect, yes, but ME3's main problems from my perspective have nothing to do with ME2 (the Crucible and the ending, mostly).
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2012 16:15
|
|
|
BreakAtmo posted:Oh, I agree that ME3's handling could have been done better. But your entire argument only works if you consider plot to be more important than world-building and character development. I don't, and neither do many other people, especially in a story like Mass Effect that's so focused on a massive, varied setting and intricate character interaction. I don't think you can realistically seperate them when character decisions drive plots. Regardless, 3 is a loving smorgasborg of characters acting contrary to their established beliefs, really botched, unnatural conversations and arbitrary decisions relating to plot and character that don't really fit together with what we know. 3 has some really good bits, but I don't think the characters survive it's weird fumblings any better than the greater plot. BreakAtmo posted:That's a matter of opinion, and apparently our opinions are different. The point I'm making is that plot is less important in Mass Effect, relatively, than it is in other works, and I think it's fine for ME2 to put the plot on the backburner in favour of character development and world-building that, IMO, serves to make ME3 a far better game. Hardly perfect, yes, but ME3's main problems from my perspective have nothing to do with ME2 (the Crucible and the ending, mostly). It's not ME2s fault, but the fact that ME3 ignores so many of ME2s big plot elements (Jesus gently caress collector base goes nowhere) are pretty ridiculous and entirely indicative of them not having a loving clue where they were going with it. ShineDog fucked around with this message at 16:24 on Sep 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2012 16:21
|
|
|
BreakAtmo posted:That's a matter of opinion, and apparently our opinions are different. I honestly don't know. What does 'intricate' character interaction mean in the sense you're saying? When someone says 'intricate' character interaction, I'm picturing Alpha Protocol's subtle, complex character interaction system, not Bioware's systems which are usually their strength, to be perfectly fair. Bioware is very good at writing characters who their audience enjoys interacting with and developing a story with. They've become very good at pandering in a very specific way and I don't mean that as a slight, because while it's not particularly complex or intelligent it's very hard to get right and they've done it with a mechanical precision for a long time, but, I don't think any of the gameplay or writing surroudning their character interaction itself is 'intricate'.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2012 16:21
|
|
|
Dan Didio posted:I honestly don't know. What does 'intricate' character interaction mean in the sense you're saying? I think it's particularly hard to call the relations within the series intricate when up until 3 characters basically never spoke to each other, only Shep. It's hard to have the tangle of relationship on which character dramas thrive when everyone only ever talks to the lead. The Dragon Age games (particularly 1) do this slightly better since characters talk all the loving time and have agendas and can have different reactions to player choices, but it's a long way from intricate. Even in 3 conversations within your group are fairly limited. The cast is generally likable, but it's done, as you say, by precision application of tropes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2012 16:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 18:55 |
|
|
Grey Fox V2 posted:She's a robot with giant tits, built in heels and camel toe so I'd say she's a pretty big step backwards for Bioware. So if you were gonna build a robot that looks like a person you wouldn't make it look like Scarlett Johannson or Ryan Gosling, but instead make it look like Roseanne Barr or Danny Devito? Actually, EDI played by Danny Devito would be awesome. Though he'd be indistinguishable from a Volus from behind.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2012 16:35
|
|
